We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Bob Esq.,
I think the first tower to collapse did so by design when the top tilted far enough. (That’s exactly how it would have gone down if I was involved in devising a method to protect the city from a tower about to fall over.)
The second tower, and WTC 7 were purposely collapsed. The second tower to collapse was probably initiated as a measure to prevent further damage or loss of life (it was as empty as it was going to get). They pulled the plug on WTC because an investigation into that building would have exposed the “take down measures” that had been installed in the others.
I don’t really like to discuss this in an open forum. If thermite and explosive were installed in the WTCs to prevent them from falling over, and doing more damage, they have probably been installed in other skyscrapers. If that becomes common knowledge, a terrorist could use our own safety measures to take down another skyscraper.
Robert,
Yes, I’m well aware of the Empire State Building crash. But getting back to a point you were making about ‘salesmanship,’ here’s a rare video clip indicative of how hard and fast the ‘salesmanship’ of (incredible) explanations were flowing that fateful day. In light of the fact, and I did confirm this from an actuary chart, that no steel building had ever completely collapsed as a result of fire until 9/11, I’m at a loss as to what kind of engineering genius or prophet was able to explain the collapse of WTC 7 20 minutes before it happened.
Bob,
You said:
“Allow me to illustrate Ockham’s razor in one simple example. For no less than six months, there existed at ground zero tons and tons of steel at and/or near the heat of fusion. Considering the law of thermo equilibrium had no effect in cooling down the metal, Ockham’s razor says IT IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY TO POSTULATE THE REALITY OF ANOTHER ENTITY THAT EXPLAINS THE DISCREPANCY. In this case, Q=MCΔT necessitates the existence of a SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT to keep the metal at the heat of fusion. Which brings us back to that evidence of thermitic materials found within the dust…”
At or near the heat of fusion? Are you saying that there was molten metal at or near the heat of the center of the sun or an nuclear (not atomic) bomb? To give a theory that addresses some of your issues (I have no desire to take the time to address all of them): What happens when you pour burning jet fuel on plastic? Is it possible that globs of burning plastic glommed onto structural steel that was exposed when its fire-resistant coat was blown off by the impact of an airliner? What happens to maximum load capacity of steel when you heat it? What is the maximum load on the steel core of the building after the impact? At what temperature would this load exceed the carrying load of the steel? Can mixing burning plastics with molten steel produce something like thermite? (Some experts think it can – see the link I posted.) I’ll try and find you the link about other buildings collapsing due to fire (one of them was a hotel in France, if I recall correctly) later if I get the chance. I also have a low tolerance for bullshit, and while it’s possible that I could be wrong (I think that it’s very unlikely in this case), I’m not taking a knee-jerk position from ignorance – I’ve looked at both sides and I find your position unconvincing. The fact that there are whackjobs with doubts similar to yours doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it sure as hell doesn’t add credibility to your argument.
Bob Esq.,
You probably already know this, but many do not. In 1945, a B-52 bomber flew into the Empire State Building during inclimate weather. That was the reason the WTCs were built to withstand the impact of a 707.
Slartibartfast,
The debunking911.com website, from an engineers point of view, is bunk. It is intended to tell those who know nothing about metallurgy, thermodynamics, or structural engineering how to think. They throw everything into the pot, and hope it will believed. That’s salesmanship, but is has nothing to do with engineering.
Byron,
No.
Slartibartfast: “Occam’s razor clearly points to flaws in engineering resulting from a failure to envision such a scenario (the towers being hit deliberately by an aircraft larger than any is service when they were built with full fuel tanks and an abundance of flammables (plastics) packing into the office space causing (a) the instant removal of the fire protection from the structural steel and (b) significant degradation in the strength of the steel due to heat, leading to (c) structural failure due to design flaws leading to a pancake collapse). Also, the buildings did not collapse at free-fall speed and several skyscrapers have been destroyed due to fire and a couple have collapsed in a manner similar to controlled demolition. I don’t have the links handy as I looked into this years ago, but just google ‘9/11 truth debunked’ and you should be able to find plenty of good information.”
First, you apparently wouldn’t know Ockham’s razor, or the law of parsimony, if you were pissing on it. “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” [“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”]. Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.” You, like many others, interpret Ockham as saying “the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer.” Thus your tendency to create a ‘simple’ mythical theory for yourself out of whole cloth and argue your way backwards in a piecemeal fashion; feigning true analysis.
Allow me to illustrate Ockham’s razor in one simple example. For no less than six months, there existed at ground zero tons and tons of steel at and/or near the heat of fusion. Considering the law of thermo equilibrium had no effect in cooling down the metal, Ockham’s razor says IT IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY TO POSTULATE THE REALITY OF ANOTHER ENTITY THAT EXPLAINS THE DISCREPANCY. In this case, Q=MCΔT necessitates the existence of a SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT to keep the metal at the heat of fusion. Which brings us back to that evidence of thermitic materials found within the dust…
Second, Leslie Robertson, et.al. designed the Towers to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling heavy at full speed; have you done the math to compare the impact force between the 707 and the planes that hit? If you did, you would have seen that the difference was negligible.
Third, you may have noticed that the towers had two support systems; one internal, i.e. the 47 steel columns, and the exo-skeletal support forming the perimeter of the building itself. Note that when the architects discussed the 707 impact design, they made the analogy of poking a hole in a metal screen; the hole exists, but the screen remains in tact. Then there are those interior columns, like rail road spikes, that weren’t exactly designed to just collapse on themselves now were they? Accordingly, when you say: “(c) structural failure due to design flaws leading to a pancake collapse” you’re adopting the pancake theory assumption that the building was a hollow box. (See the FEMA report)
Fourth, fires burn up, building fall down. How hot is a diffuse jet flame? If you poured jet fuel onto concrete and lit it with a match; what happens and why? Where is the steel losing its strength and how the hell does that affect the rest of the building below? Was it built upside down? Do you see buildings as nothing more than fancy forms of stacked boxes of equal strength? Do tree trunks on your planet go from small diameter to larger diameter as you travel upwards on the tree?
Fifth; show me where a steel structured building collapsed as a result of fire before 9/11.
Finally, unlike the conspiracy nuts that happen to have doubts similar to mine, I don’t get a cheap pornographic thrill from ‘blaming the govmint.’ I simply have a low threshold tolerance for bullshit.
Robert,
The best all-around 9/11 debunking site I know is:
http://www.debunking911.com
I believe this site address all of the issues you raise.
Slarti:
you arent a thermiter?
Robert,
You said:
“When scientists arive at a conclusion, then change their tune, how do you explain it?”
I would hold it up as an example that I’m right about the system – it’s possible for scientists to get things wrong, but extremely unlikely (as near to impossible as you can get) that a large group of scientists (individually or in collusion) falsified data to provide evidence to support a political agenda. Good science wins out in the end, that is the strength of the scientific method. Also, since my position is that cutting carbon emissions (carbon emission may not be the best metric of pollution, but its a reasonable one) is a good idea even if climate change isn’t correct, a reversal of the current consensus (which I don’t think is happening, but could be possible) wouldn’t affect my argument at all.
Bdaman,
What a treat! We get to see your lies on a different topic! “…when in the history of mankind no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire until that day…”. Yeah, and Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And building 7 was gutted when the towers fell (tower 2, specifically, I believe). For all of the talk of ‘collapsing into their own footprint’ the towers created an enormous amount of debris nearby (unlike controlled demolition which really does cause buildings to collapse into their own footprints). If you look at pictures of the other side of building 7 (the side facing the towers), you can seen that the building suffered major structural damage (enough to reasonably been the cause of the collapse).
Slartibartfast,
“Also, the buildings did not collapse at free-fall speed and several skyscrapers have been destroyed due to fire and a couple have collapsed in a manner similar to controlled demolition.”
The towers did fall at free-fall speed. No other steel structures have collapsed due to fire. You’ll have to provide me with links to support your claim.
Even if you want to attribute the pancaking of the floors to weakening by the fires, how do you explain the demolition of the verticle center structure (the core structural component) when no sheer force was applied?
Bdaman,
I’m well aware of the physical evidence recently confirming the existence of active thermitic material found in the debris.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
I tend to focus, however, on the patently obvious contradictions of laws of physics and reason itself as found within the commonly accepted mythology.
Byron,
I saw your post and I’ll reply to it but I need to take a little break first… I just thought I’d weigh in on the 9/11 issue.
While there might be more legitimate questions raised by the 9/11 truthers than the birthers, the leaders of the movement are whackjobs on Orly’s level and the ‘controlled demolition’ theory is on par with the theory that President Obama is an Indonesian citizen, in my opinion. It takes weeks (if not months) to rig large building for controlled demolition when they’ve been gutted and you can place the charges in plain sight. It’s silly to think that the WTC could have been either been rigged for demolition immediately before 9/11 or have have charges implanted after the first terrorist attack on the WTC without anyone noticing. Occam’s razor clearly points to flaws in engineering resulting from a failure to envision such a scenario (the towers being hit deliberately by an aircraft larger than any is service when they were built with full fuel tanks and an abundance of flammables (plastics) packing into the office space causing (a) the instant removal of the fire protection from the structural steel and (b) significant degradation in the strength of the steel due to heat, leading to (c) structural failure due to design flaws leading to a pancake collapse). Also, the buildings did not collapse at free-fall speed and several skyscrapers have been destroyed due to fire and a couple have collapsed in a manner similar to controlled demolition. I don’t have the links handy as I looked into this years ago, but just google ‘9/11 truth debunked’ and you should be able to find plenty of good information.
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
Slartibartfast,
When scientists arive at a conclusion, then change their tune, how do you explain it?
BoB
Per the Towers, you may want to investigate it for yourself. With 47 vertical steel columns at the core of the buildings, none of which were compromised below the points of impact of the planes, I’m at a loss as to how 1)the South Tower fell first, when the plane blew most of its jet fuel while missing the core columns and creating a fireball upon exit; and 2) how either of them fell at free fall speed, down a path of increasing resistance (the columns). Three perfectly symmetrical collapses of steel buildings on the same day, when in the history of mankind no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire until that day; not to mention building 7 having not been hit by a plane (as if that mattered, structurally, to the portion of the building supporting the plane wreck).
________________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
Tootie,
You may not know that I’m a scientist (I’m a mathematical biologist doing cell cycle modeling) and you certainly don’t know the particulars of my situation that I’ll detail below, so I’m trying not to take what you said personally, but I hope you’ll understand why I’m passionate about it.
You said:
“Do you think that the possibility of ruining his reputation stopped Tiger Woods from behaving badly?”
I think that while his reputation does have an effect on his income, he’s likely to keep the bulk of his endorsements, his reputation doesn’t effect his playing golf professionally, celebrities tend to get a lot more forgiveness from the public than most people (especially on the topic of sex scandals), and besides that, he’s a frakking billionaire, for god’s sake! Comparing his public reputation to a scientist’s professional reputation is apples and oranges.
You said:
“I don’t think that scientists are necessarily any more worried about ruined reputations than golf stars. For some, the cult-like obsession about the earth and a seeming hatred of the human race pushes them to shoe-horn their facts into their pre-determined conclusions.”
Most people don’t go into science to promote an agenda, they go into science because they become interested in a field and want to study it. I’m confident that the vast majority of climate change scientists came to their position on climate change because of their studies rather than the other way around.
You said:
“Many scientists also live in obscurity, plodding away, perhaps unappreciated by the world. And I’m afraid some might do anything to get attention or funds.”
Okay, I live in obscurity, plodding away, and I’m certainly feeling at least under-appreciated by the world these days. My current funding runs out at the end of the month which will leave me unemployed and without health insurance. At best, I can’t expect to obtain new funding to continue a project that I’ve spent the last 4 years of my life on which I consider extremely promising until sometime this fall. I would NEVER compromise my science to get attention or funds, despite my need, because that would defeat the purpose of being in science – discovering how the world works. If I didn’t care more about understanding things, I could have a great job with a salary well into 6 figures (say doing financial math on Wall Street like some classmates of mine). I’ll stand by the side of the road with a sign saying “Will do mathematical modeling for food” before I’ll compromise my scientific integrity for funding or attention. I believe that most scientists are much closer to my position than the one you describe.
You said:
“Remember the recent tragic story of the distinguished scientist who fudged the data about stem cell research? I’ve provided a link below for you if you like. There are many of these kinds of stories.”
These stories are far from the norm. The pressure to publish or perish can push people into desperation causing them to falsify a result which they believe is true but can’t prove, but the idea that someone would falsify data in order to support a position they know to be false is laughable, at least in an academic setting – in a corporate setting the pressures are different, so maybe this could happen there (in a company, scientists are paid to produce research supporting the company’s position, while in academia, scientists must publish in quality journals and earn the respect of their peers for the merits of their work in order to further their career – I’ve never heard of academic career in science being built of lies like you suggest).
You said:
“The whole culture in America was changed in the 60s based on the fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey. Your proposal seems to simplify human nature too much as it seems to presume that scientists are not similarly susceptible to human emotions like we are because they deal with things logical.”
I have no knowledge of, and therefore opinion on, the veracity of Kinsey’s work. As I scientist, I am well aware that scientists are humans with human emotions (at least I think I’m human – quick, somebody give me a Turing test! ;-)). I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t problems with the peer-review system either (believe me, that’s the last thing I’d argue right now), but the things that you suggest are not them. The pressures in the peer review system don’t tend to push people into falsifying data as it is ineffective and counterproductive.
You said:
“I saw an interview this evening with Anderson Cooper, I believe, where the fellow who was spoken about badly in the “Climate-Gate” emails said even the SOFTWARE codes used for collecting the data (or for the climate models) was intentionally shoddy and responsible for yielding some these absurd predictions and results.”
The only code from the hacked emails I’ve seen was a fragment posted by Bdaman titled ‘The Smoking Code’, which turned out to be totally innocuous when I looked at it – I strongly doubt this statement.
You said:
“For some scientists the absolute power they derive from the thought of controlling the whole world is far too tempting to walk away from. And since the perpetrators of any false predictions will be running the show, their reputations may never be “destroyed” until they are long gone from this earth. In other words, the lunatics will be running the asylum. The status of their reputation will be irrelevant for a very long time because they control the information.”
You think people go into science for money and power? That one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard (I’ve already said I could easily make significantly more money in another field and it’s hard to think of any all-powerful scientist. People go into science for the GLORY! We don’t want our reputation to last long enough to keep the grants rolling in until we retire or die, we want our reputation to outlast the human race! I don’t want to be a billionaire or rule the world, I want my name to be included on lists like Aristotle, Lebnitz (yes, this is a dig at Newton), Darwin, Gauss, Poincare, Einstein, Feynman…
You said:
“Following the money is just the easiest way to see what it going on. It is a sort of radioactive dye that lets us see the flow of the life-blood within the structure.”
I don’t disagree. I don’t think you understand how the money flows into peer-reviewed research – there are problems that would be highlighted by your radioactive dye, but they’re not the ones you’re concerned about.
You said:
“Human nature is such that when absolute power is laid at your feet, common sense and integrity are generally thrown overboard.”
Show me any scientist who has had absolute power laid at their feet. Considerations of money and power corrupting the scientific process are much more relevant in corporate research than they are in peer-reviewed research.
You said:
“I think we give scientists too much slack for not being as flawed and subject to bad characteristics as the rest of us.”
As I said before, I am painfully aware that scientist are as flawed as any other human beings (myself maybe more than others), but the pressures of our world don’t tend to turn those flaws into the problems that you suggest.
You said:
“And I think it is extremely dangerous to put them on a pedestal.”
We shouldn’t put ANYONE on a pedestal (except me… ;-))
Robert:
then why wouldnt they just say that? So you are saying they planted those charges in say 1994 in case something happened? I dont think I would do that, what if they went off accidentaly?
There wasnt enough time to plant charges right after 9/11 anyway, it takes weeks to put those charges in place.
Back to taxing poluters.
If you tax the electric company for releasing toxins into the atmosphere, they just pass that cost along to the consumer. Most electric companies have no local competition. In fact, I recently read a story about an electric company wanting to raise their rates because people reduced their consumption. The consumer goes green, the electric company doesn’t sell as many kilowatts, so they want to charge more per kilowatt. How can the consumer afford to go green, and pay more to the electric company?
There was a good show on PBS last night about precious metals used in green technology. China is the biggest polluter, and the primary source for precious metals used in green technology. China wants to be able to pollute more, in order to mine and process the precious metals.
Bob Esq:
“Per the History channel and others like it, I no longer see them as ‘educational’ — not since they’ve been showcasing series about UFO’s and haunted houses, etc., etc”
I need to clean my keyboard, luckily it was only tea with no sugar.
Slarti:
I agree that pollution is a negative, poison water and air is a negative and not conducive to human life (a high value).
So therefore the extension and protection of human life is a positive. I think we both agree on this point.
But industry also promotes and extends human life by creating jobs and wealth and new technologies. I think we both agree on this point as well.
What if we had no industry, we would be back in the stone ages and life would be brutal and short. So we have pollution and a fairly high quality of life on the one hand and a short brutal existence on the other. We need industry and no industry is risk free, people will die fixing those giant wind turbines.
So how do you balance the need for industry and the need for a clean environment? I don’t think you need to, I think innovation and prosperity will lead to a clean environment.
Wouldn’t it be better to change things through market forces – consumer spending, rather than taxes on pollution. A company will just absorb those taxes and pass them on to the consumer, which is how all taxes are paid. You are not punishing the company by making it pay a pollution tax. If it gets taxed $10,000 and it makes a 1000 widgets the cost of the widget increases by $10. There is no real monetary loss to the company. Unless of course the company goes out of business, but then real people are hurt because they are out of a job. I will assume companies could also be put out of business by consumers, but that would happen gradually and they would most likely make the necessary corrections to maintain market share.
If the press would do an honest job and point out to consumers which companies were good stewards of the environment and which were not, I will hazard a guess those companies that pollute would change their ways faster than through some government imposed tax. All taxes and penalties imposed on industry are paid by consumers and not the particular company. In reality, we are paying the tax you wish to impose. It is the equivalent to rubbing your wife’s face in the mess the puppy made.